Ryan v Promontoria [Aran] Ireland Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Conor Dignam
• Judgment Date: 27 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 362
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record No. 2020 5373P

Between

John Ryan

Plaintiff

and

Promontoria (Aran) Ireland Limited, Ulster Bank Ireland DAC, James A. Murphy and Damien Harper

Defendants

Between

John Ryan

Plaintiff

and

Promontoria (Aran) Ireland Limited, Ulster Bank Ireland DAC, James A. Murphy and Damien Harper

Defendants

[2025] IEHC 362

Record No. 2020 5373P

Record No. 2021 798P

THE HIGH COURT

Interlocutory injunction – Fair issue to be tried – Balance of convenience – Plaintiff seeking the grant of an interlocutory injunction – Whether the plaintiff had established a fair issue to be tried

Facts: The plaintiff, Mr Ryan, sought: (i) an injunction prohibiting the first or second defendant, Promontoria (Aran) Ireland Ltd (Promontoria) and Ulster Bank Ireland DAC (Ulster Bank) respectively, from interfering with the plaintiff’s rights over 4 Corr na Cille, Banagher, Co. Offaly (the Property); (ii) an injunction prohibiting the third and/or fourth defendants, Mr Murphy and Mr Harper respectively, from acting as a receiver and/or receiver and manager in respect of the Property or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff’s rights over the Property; and (iii) an injunction prohibiting the third and/or fourth defendants from offering the Property for auction and prohibiting either of them from concluding any sale of the property pending determination of the proceedings. The issues upon which it was submitted that the plaintiff had a fair issue to be tried were: (i) that the receivers (the third and/or fourth defendants) had no power of sale under the mortgage; and (ii) even if they had, the Property was being sold at an undervalue and that the method of sale would not obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. The plaintiff submitted that the balance of justice favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

Held by the High Court (Dignam J) that the plaintiff had established a fair issue that the receiver did not have a power of sale. It was clear to Dignam J from O’Donnell J’s judgment in Merck Sharp & Dohme v Clonmel Healthcare [2019] IESC 65 that if the Court is satisfied that there is a fair issue to be tried, it must then consider how best the matter should be arranged pending the trial and that this involves a consideration of the balance of convenience and the balance of justice. Dignam J held that the balance of convenience or balance of justice was against the grant of an interlocutory injunction. He held that the adequacy of damages for the plaintiff, while no longer a separate and determinative factor in its own right, was nonetheless a very important, if not the most important, consideration in the assessment of that balance. Dignam J found that the plaintiff had not established that damages would not be an adequate remedy; other factors which leaned against an injunction were the question of delay on the part of the plaintiff (though its weight was limited), and the likelihood that the plaintiff would not be able to satisfy an award of damages. Dignam J noted that leaning against those factors was the fact that the precise figure for indebtedness was unknown and therefore the prejudice to the defendants if an injunction was not granted was not known, and the likelihood that the value of the Property was likely to increase. Nonetheless, Dignam J found that these did not outweigh the factors which leaned against the grant of an injunction.

Dignam J therefore refused the relief sought.

Relief refused.

Judgment of Mr. Justice Conor Dignam delivered on the 27 ^th day of June 2025

INTRODUCTION

1 . The first-named plaintiff issued a motion in each of the above sets of proceedings seeking various interlocutory injunctive reliefs, including restraining the sale of certain properties. It was agreed by the parties that the motion in the first set had been overtaken or subsumed by the motion in the second set of proceedings. This judgment therefore only deals with the motion in the 2021 proceedings, though some reference will have to be made to the broader context.

2 . The second-named plaintiff is not a party to these motions. I will therefore refer to the first-named plaintiff simply as “the plaintiff”.

3 . By way of Notice of Motion, Plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:

• 1. An Order by way of interim or interlocutory Injunction prohibiting the First Named Defendant and/or the Second Named Defendant, their servants and/or agents from transferring and/or disclosing in any way confidential and customer information and/or personal information or data (including sensitive personal information or data) of the Plaintiff, to any third party and in particular to the Third Named Defendant and/or the Fourth Named Defendant (“The Receiver”), their servants and/or agents.

• 2. An Order by way of interim or interlocutory Injunction prohibiting the First Named Defendant and or the Second Named Defendant appointing a Receiver and/or a Receiver and Manager over the property, assets and/or undertakings of the Plaintiff, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff's rights over his property, assets and/or undertakings, including but not limited to the property described in the Plenary Summons (including the selling or leasing or advertising for sale or lease).

• 3. An Order by way of Injunction prohibiting the Third Named Defendant and/or the Fourth Named Defendant their servants and/or agents from acting or purporting to act as a Receiver and/or Receiver and Manager in respect of the property, assets and/or undertakings of the Plaintiff or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff's rights over his property, assets and/or undertakings, including but not limited to the property described in the Schedule to the within Plenary Summons (including the selling, or leasing or advertising the same for sale or for lease).

• 4. An Order by way of Injunction prohibiting the Third Named Defendant and/or the Fourth Named Defendant, their servants and/or agents from offering for auction any of the Plaintiff's properties and in particular the property known as 4, Corr na Cille, Banagher, Co. Offaly, and/or an Order prohibiting the Third Named Defendant and/or the Fourth Named Defendant from concluding any sale of the said property pending the determination of the proceedings herein.

• 5. An Order directing by way of Injunction prohibiting the Third Named Defendant and/or the Fourth Named Defendant, their servants and/or agents from taking any further step until the relevant loans the subject of these proceedings have been reviewed under the Irish Central Bank Tracker Examination and until this review and examination process is concluded.”

4 . The reliefs sought were originally in respect of seventeen properties but, as a number of those properties had already been sold or were the subject of separate Special Summons proceedings, it was agreed at the hearing that the relief was only sought in respect of a property at 4 Corr na Cille, Church Street, Banagher, Co. Offaly. Another property (11 Orlagh View) had not been sold, but as no steps had been taken to sell this property no reliefs were sought in relation to it.

5 . Counsel for the plaintiff also indicated at the beginning of the hearing that Reliefs 1 and 5 in the Notice of Motion were not being sought. He also indicated that while the application for Relief 2 was being maintained, the main focus was on Reliefs 3 and 4.

6 . Thus, in summary, the relief being sought by the plaintiff is:

• (i) An injunction prohibiting the first or second-named defendant (“Promontoria” and “Ulster Bank” respectively) from interfering with the plaintiff's rights over 4 Corr na Cille (“the Property”);

• (ii) An injunction prohibiting the third and/or fourth-named defendants from acting as a Receiver and/or Receiver and Manager in respect of the Property or otherwise interfering with the plaintiff's rights over the Property;

• (iii) An injunction prohibiting the third and/or fourth-named defendants from offering the Property for auction and prohibiting either of them from concluding any sale of the property pending determination of the proceedings.

7 . The background, insofar as relevant to these reliefs is, in summary, as follows. Some of these facts are in dispute and therefore the following should not be seen as findings.

8 . The plaintiff and his wife were parties to a number of loans with Ulster Bank. It appears that these were for the purpose of buying properties for “Buy to Let” purposes. These included the Property, the subject of this application. The loan in respect of this Property was secured by a mortgage of the 22 ^nd December 2004. These facts are not in dispute.

9 . This loan and mortgage were transferred by Ulster Bank to Promontoria on the 12 ^th February 2015. The plaintiff challenges the validity of this transfer in the substantive proceedings.

10 . The third-named defendant was appointed as receiver of the Property in July 2016. This appointment was novated to the fourth-named defendant in November 2020. The plaintiff challenges both of these steps in the substantive proceedings.

11 . As noted, several of the plaintiffs' properties were sold. It seems that the third-named defendant placed another of the plaintiff's properties on the market in June 2020. This appears to have led to the institution of the first set of proceedings in July 2020.

12 . In early 2021, the Property was advertised for sale by online auction which was to take place on the 19 ^th March. The guide price was stated to be €85,000. The 2021 proceedings were instituted by a Plenary Summons followed by this application shortly thereafter.

13 . The reliefs sought in the Plenary Summons include, though are not limited to, injunctive relief and reliefs in respect of the validity of the transfer of various loans and security from Ulster Bank to Promontoria and a challenge to the validity of the appointment of the third and fourth named defendants as receiver. The plaintiff took the...